The language is changing quickly and we have to see what becomes the consensus. I have used "forced birth" on several occasions because it focuses on the effect of denying control over reproductive choices. The consequences do not end when a state denies a woman the right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy.
And I think the root of Dobbs is broader than reproductive choice, but control over personhood and self. Telling a woman she cannot decide whether to procreate is rooted in the notion that women are "less than" other citizens. It is a shocking decision, with many parallels to Dred Scott.
I agree totally, Robert. Also, anti-abortion's stance is to force pregnancy until the moment a fetus takes a breath. These same people are against universal health care, parents being available to care for the child in the first two months, welfare assistance for children born into poverty, and other support for raising healthy, educated children across our nation.
I agree. Pro-choice is more specific to a woman's rights, as Clarence Thomas also suggests he will attack our rights to contraception as well. As far as the other side, they are anti-abortion, but I feel anti-choice gives a more inclusive title to their attack on women's rights. They are certainly not pro-life, and should never be described as such. I hear no plan from them on how to deal with the many babies in this situation that will be brought into this world.
The Dobbs fans are Pro-fetus! As has been noted in the past, after the birth when the baby becomes viable then it is on its own! Healthcare…only if the parents can afford it!
I said it before, Dobbs protects the existence of an embryo and fetus while same court allows weapons of mass destruction to be purchased and used to massacre the very same children the court insisted must be born!
Great point. I've always used the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice". "Pro-life" is not the appropriate way to describe people who are against abortion. Those of us who are pro-choice care intensely about life!
Yes. We can do a much better "PR" job. Our narrative also needs to clarify that we are actually in favor of reducing the need for more abortions via education and contraception.
The stories I heard from an OBGYN on the Newshour last night were just awful. Women are being physically and emotionally harmed by the requirement they carry to term a fetus that has no chance of survival. This is sick minded and diabolically cruel. This needs a lot more publicity.
It is a simple message: Democrats want to assist women - Republicans are hurting them. Just as I believe we should be showing what an AR-15 does to a human, we should be shouting about the harm these arbitrary anti-women laws are doing.
Republicans are NOT "pro-life". They are pro brutality.
It will be uncomfortable and the images will have to be preceded by trigger warnings but confronting people with the realities of their decisions and making them unhappy with how they feel is critical to getting them to change. It's like the Justices complaining when they have to actually see people who are unhappy with their decisions and are forced to realize that those decisions impact real lives.
Bill- I think your assessment of pro brutality is accurate. As far as AR 15's-though showing the images of children decimated by the effects of an AR 15 are horrific, perhaps some pro gun folks might think twice about owning one once that image is seen. On the other hand, those sickos who commit the atrocities might be more inspired. Hard to say.
I agree with you on the Anti-Choice vs Pro-Life but I don't agree on the Pro-choice vs Pro-abortion. For too long Dems and progressives have been trying too hard not to scare the other side by saying abortion and it has landed us here. Abortion is a right for women. Abortion is healthcare. We should stop being afraid to use that word. We are pro-abortion because it is a right, healthcare, and very necessary. I am done trying to soften things for the other side. I feel like only monsters could do what they just did to us.
I disagree with you on the wording. Pro-choice embodies the proactive right of women to guide their own lives, in contrast to Pro-abortion, which throws a negative light only on the reproductive choices that women face.
"Pro-choice" is an overarching term that encompasses a woman's right to make choices along the entire spectrum of her own health care. It includes reproductive choices such as the right to an abortion.
I think pro-choice is too consumerist (what lipstick should i choose?) and pro-abortion is inaccurate. What many of us support is women's freedom to decide when and how to procreate, and women's freedom to end pregnancies that are unwanted and in some cases the result of violence assault.
If we want to be REALLY accurate. It is Reproductive Justice and that includes all the people that had no access or very little access to reproductive healthcare when abortion was legal and before Roe was overturned.
I understand what you mean. But pro-choice has never been consumerist to me. I was at the age when Roe was decided, so that pro-choice was a huge deal - a life-and-death deal. I'll be 70 next week...
And i understand what you mean, i'm your age. but my 40 something daughter has always objected to the word choice, and our town has had signs proclaiming "its a baby not a choice" for decades. I know that by choice we mean agency, but daughter would argue that l4 year olds coerced into sex are already not able to make "choice" about their lives.
One more add-on. 14-year-olds SHOULD definitely have a choice, just like every other female of our species. Rape is a crime. I want to know what happens to the males who ruin the lives of females.
As a lawyer who devotes 100% of her time analyzing the pathetic failure of the people who control the legal profession (and its law schools), I can speak to the misery that accompanies the practice of law. The white male power that controls the lives and careers of lawyers in marginalized groups, including women, is exemplified by the personality of the Federalist Society, the elite of the power behind the ABA, which established the paradigm for all bar associations. Do you know that the ABA was formed during the Civil War to promote the legal profession at that time?
Part of what is wrong with the legal profession is the paywall that everywhere limits and restricts access to information to anyone who chooses not to "belong" and pay dues for the privilege. The interests of the rank-and-file lawyers dealing with the stress, boredom, and inadequate recognition attached to an an ordinary career are ignored.
I mention this because the American Lawyer article cited by Robert is so restricted. I happen to have a membership that allows me to read one article a month (whoopee!) so I'm good. But the average concerned citizen will never read what those women lawyers have to say - because they are part of that elite group, serving clients who can afford them. (Follow the money.)
The problem is made worse by the refusal of partners and former partners in those big law firms to give a little of their own time to provide some help to a nobody like me who is taking on the lonely quest of trying to improve the lot of those ordinary lawyers, close to half of whom are sorry they went to law school. People who are influential in law schools are the same: fewer than 10% of professors who publish articles encouraging changes to the statisically proven unhappy state of the legal profession -- one that finds suicide as the third leading cause of death. -- will spend any time giving a little time to help someone achieve change. It seems that big firm lawyers and well-published professors have better things to do than spend an hour trying to address the realities of how the legal system is failing ordinary lawyers and the public they serve.
What the Federalist Society has achieved with Dobbs and the power within the two branches of government it now controls is an outgrowth of all that I speak of here. As wealthy as our legal system is, it is of little value to the ordinary people whose lives are affected by the failures of the legal profession and the schools that profit from putting them into a workforce that disrespects them.
We are dealing with this SCOTUS because good people have allowed the status quo to be shaped by the lawyers who controlled this country during the Civil War. It was just a matter of time.
Hi, Janet. Well said, all around. But I gained access to The American Lawyer in exchange for giving the publication my gmail address, which it undoubtedly monetizes by selling advertising directed at me. But you are right; as I recall, the subscription to the print and data versions of the American lawyer is shockingly high--like $2,500 per year?
I am waiting for my first indignant email from a Federalist Society member. When I read the membership list last night, I was shocked to see some prominent women who have fought for women's rights and otherwise progressive male members of the bar. But that is the secret of a "club." People who aren't in it, want to be included, even if it stands for things they abhor.
Altho we keep talking about abortion. what is really at stake is who has control over what to do with one's body. Other actions that have been mentioned concerning the right to use contraceptives, but what about the right to take or not to take any different medicines; what about surgery. We tried once to control the intake of alcohol - a quick turn around. I'm sure there are other types of actions if we stop to think about it. I also agree that one of the worst things we did as a society was to allow the term right to life to refer only for abortions. Se conveniently forget about the death penalty, providing help to those after birth and those who may need long term care. As others have stated one can be pro choice without necessarily being pro abortion. The hypocrisy especially among those on the right is amazing. They pick and choose what they agree with from the Bible, from the Constitution among others, but don't believe others have the same right. I don't hear much about people being against abortion - if you don't believe in it, don't have one, but others should have the same right to allow for it. We are in a sad state when what the majority of people believe is not important [see the recent SCOTUS decisions]
I agree, Hillard. From my note above: I think the root of Dobbs is broader than reproductive choice, but control over personhood and self. Telling a woman she cannot decide whether to procreate is rooted in the notion that women are "less than" other citizens. It is a shocking decision, with many parallels to Dred Scott.
And beyond procreating, these laws are putting lives at risk because they can't terminate a pregnancy that can kill them. The ectopic pregnancy example is absolutely barbaric, as is the 12-year-old incest victim, and expecting parents that typically participate in genetic counseling and testing - turning back the clock on medicine/healthcare. For women that are diagnosed with cancer while pregnant, the list can go on. The state taking away this control from us is unfathomable.
Gee…I didn’t know the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness were deleted from the founding fathers words when they set down the texts that established our country!?
When did that happen?
If a person does not have total control over her/his body then how can they pursue life and liberty?
Can’t believe the rogue court occupiers would have passed law courses penning the nonsense they used in these recent decisions!
...and isn't it curious how they continue to IGNORE the Federal Supremacy clause embedded in the Constitution and repeatedly say "Send it back to the states."
Scalia’s infamous Heller reasoning, which contained Nothing about an individuals right to bear arms outside his/her home, opened the flood gates for gun lobbyist money to buy votes amongst state legislators who then voted for open carry and concealed carry laws in their respective states!
Federal Supremacy? Indeed…incorrectly applied to justify state laws!
When we amend the Constitution to guarantee the right to healthcare, including abortion, limit the right to posses guns to military or police service and secure the right to vote without undue burden, the first provision to be amended is the Preamble: we shall add the following provision from the Declaration of Independence, although with the one modification depicted in ALL CAPS:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all PEOPLE are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Oh, and I forgot, for those Supreme Court judges who claim that since a certain right is not specifically granted in the Constitution, we shall add asterisks “*” to and underline and bold the 9th Amendment which states:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Federalist Society is an anti-democratic front for the idea that government works best when run by an elite minority (ie. an oligarchy of wealth) because the masses are deemed incapable of self-government. This was the credo of the original Federalist political party in America, the worst aspects of which were espoused by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.
PBS Newshour has been doing very touching "In Memoriam" segments to honor our brothers and sisters who have fallen since the many deaths that occurred from Covid. They have also done these segments for those in this country that have been murdered by men who should have never owned a gun, much less an AR-15.
While I am not an attorney why not ALL attorneys who support this demand the ABA disbar these six conservative Supreme Court Justices who voted for Dobson? Who voted to disregard their oath to uphold the Constitution? Let’s demand this. I can write my letter to the ABA. And you? I guess the Constitution does not require attorneys to sit on SCOTUS, but still….
Hi, Richard. Your intention is directionally right, and I agree. but the ABA is not a licensing body. It is a little like belonging to the Chamber of Commerce. I think that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh should be impeached for lying to the Senate.
Certainly the RW GOP folks wouldn't vote to impeach-they basically believe they shouldn't be held to account ,so why should faithless Justices be held to account, especially since those Justices are doing what the legislators want.
It is outrageous that abortion has become criminalized. But the further insanity is that men, the fathers, are left out of the equation. They ARE half the equation. Women, mothers, will be imprisoned but not men, the fathers. But perhaps I’m crazy for applying logic to authoritarian cruelty.
A couple of points. First, let’s always remember, always, that Dobbs is an attack on human rights—the rights of all humans—and not “just” on the rights of women. It reminds me of Martin Niemoller’s reflection (sadly, too late), “First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist…”
Second, let’s remember that the Republican Party, now joined by a majority of the Supreme(?) Court, is engaged on a war on democracy, and a war on truth itself.
I am grateful that Kevin McCarthy did not have the power to never impanel the 1/6 Committee. American citizens living in California's 23rd District would have had no idea how close we came to a revolution followed by an autocracy and kleptocracy. Nor would the rest of us. Ugh. Kevin McCarthy and Gym Jordan are dangers to the republic.
Here is the full text of the article, which consists only of the letter. I have excluded the headline and the 2,650 names:
“[O]ne result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens.” That, as the dissent so clearly states, is the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In reversing Roe v. Wade and striking down half a century of precedent holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to decide for herself whether to carry a pregnancy to term, the court has entrusted to the governments of each state that otherwise most personal of choices, and left women bereft of the most fundamental of rights to control their bodies and the trajectory of their lives.
As the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, “The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It’s a decision she must make for herself.” Indeed, women throughout the country have been able to achieve educational, professional and personal goals because they were able to make these decisions for themselves. In rejecting Roe, Dobbs is remarkable in its disdain for women’s lives, health and autonomy and its disregard for the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth. As the dissenters noted, “Today’s court … does not think there is anything of constitutional significance attached to a woman’s control of her body and the path of her life.” We find that disregard—and the disregard for half a century of precedent—both astounding and reprehensible. We also know that the burdens of this decision will fall disproportionately on those with the least access to healthcare, particularly on women of color, those in rural communities, and those without ample financial resources.
The effects of this decision are profound. The majority in Dobbs has cleared the way for states to commandeer a woman’s body from the very moment of fertilization and “force her to bring a pregnancy to term even at the steepest personal and familial cost.” Indeed, a girl too young to consent to sex under state law—or to drive, drink, or vote—may, under the majority’s ruling, be compelled to carry a pregnancy to term because a state takes a greater interest in the possibility of a life other than her own. This is contrary to the Constitution’s fundamental promise of free and equal citizenship under law. What next personal decision will the court rule we are not permitted to make on our own? What greater indignities must we fear? How far will state authorities go to enforce these restrictive and compulsory laws, and against whom? Will women be able to receive safe, effective, medically-indicated care during miscarriage, and when a wanted pregnancy goes awry? Or will physicians hesitate or refuse to provide such care for fear of personal liability? Is it safe for pregnant women to travel to states where such care cannot be assured? This tectonic shift in the law brings dangerous and life-altering consequences for all of us.
Each of the undersigned has the great honor and privilege of being members of the bar. We swore oaths to support and defend the Constitution. We take that oath seriously. We know that our ability to serve in the legal profession and swear that oath was hard fought and rests fundamentally on the premise and promise that we, as women and people who have or had the potential to become pregnant, are free and equal citizens under the law. And our presence and leadership within the bar is without question a byproduct of the freedom each of us has had to make reproductive decisions for ourselves.
In sum, with the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, women’s fundamental rights to liberty and equality have been drastically abridged. Women’s right to make choices about our reproductive health and when and if to have or expand a family is now subject to the control of state legislatures. The court has failed to uphold the promise at the very core of the Constitution: the promise of liberty and dispassionate, fair and equal treatment for all under law.
We cannot let that failure stand. As lawyers, and officers of the courts, we know we have unique abilities and responsibilities in the wake of this decision. To honor that responsibility and our oath to support the Constitution, we each commit ourselves to offering our pro bono legal services to organizations that defend and support women’s rights to autonomy, equality and safe access to reproductive care, including abortion. These organizations have waged the battle for reproductive freedom for decades. Now more than ever, they are in need as they support women across the country who will find themselves in the crosshairs of the law. This commitment is personal, but we call upon members of the bar across the country to make similar commitments, including and importantly the men of the bar, who we need as our allies in the fight for equal citizenship.
I agree that it is (and long has been) essential that “we” engage concretely with the white evangelical Christians and Federalist Society members of our acquaintance - and to the extent feasible, otherwise too. Fear and ignorance of how to do this lovingly and effectively are barriers to our undertaking this critical task, but “we” can overcome our fear, and I am grateful that you and others are helping us “cure” our ignorance. Thank you, Robert, Pew Trust and David Frume.
I know you can't cover everything every day, Robert. But having just seen the BWC videos of white Akron policemen firing about 60 rounds in a matter of seconds at a fleeing, unarmed black man--many of these shots fired after Mr. Walker was hit and lying (presumably already dead) on the ground--I urge us all not to forget about such other horrible examples of American citizens being deprived of their rights by government actors who are totally out of control.
Writing from Texas…I agree with Robert that we should also be writing our local officials, even though at least here they are nonpartisan. My message to my city council was that I did not want the city budget spent on chasing down abortion seekers or providers. And from our school board, I want to hear how counselors and school nurses will continue to support our students, as our state govt. has turned that mission upside down. Lastly, as you hear talk about how all this might more broadly impact our economy, workplace, etc., encourage folks to take a look at world population review.org for a list of countries in which abortion is banned (R’s next goal). All third world.
Thanks, Cathy. Are you able to give a better link to the list? I click on review.org and got a virus warning. Can you link directly to the article (or past the list)? thanks!
I apologize for initially posting an incorrect link and thank you Robert and Theo for pointing out and correcting.
I was in a rush leaving for the day, but want to clarify that I have been hearing stories positing that somehow we need to see over time the impact on poverty, the economy, etc. I call BS--we don't need to wait to see the impact. All we need to do is look at those countries where abortion is banned. Why isn't Congress holding hearings and getting this information out there? There is absolutely the civil rights/women/child abuse aspect, but this will have a huge impact on the country's economic well-being and certainly standing in the world. I do not want to criticize the other countries on this list, but surely we do not aspire to have their levels of economic strength/well-being?
Thank you for not mentioning Lindsey Graham. I have enjoyed the short respite of seeing that disgusting face on my TV screen.
Among the many things that have really killed me in this Trump era is how so many of these characters feel that they can just ignore subpoenas. Let's just imagine the thousands of black and brown folks in the system. What if they all just decided to do the same??
DA Willis is one bad ass and clearly a brilliant attorney leading a very serious investigation. I believe she will be what saves America.
Could we regain some kernel of truth with our own vocabulary correction? I suggest:
Pro-choice not Pro-abortion
Anti-Choice not Pro-Life. Just sayin" words matter. I count myself as Pro-Choice and Pro-LIfe (against the death penalty).
New language I'm seeing and think has greater truth and resonance "FORCED BIRTH".
The language is changing quickly and we have to see what becomes the consensus. I have used "forced birth" on several occasions because it focuses on the effect of denying control over reproductive choices. The consequences do not end when a state denies a woman the right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy.
And I think the root of Dobbs is broader than reproductive choice, but control over personhood and self. Telling a woman she cannot decide whether to procreate is rooted in the notion that women are "less than" other citizens. It is a shocking decision, with many parallels to Dred Scott.
I agree totally, Robert. Also, anti-abortion's stance is to force pregnancy until the moment a fetus takes a breath. These same people are against universal health care, parents being available to care for the child in the first two months, welfare assistance for children born into poverty, and other support for raising healthy, educated children across our nation.
I agree. Pro-choice is more specific to a woman's rights, as Clarence Thomas also suggests he will attack our rights to contraception as well. As far as the other side, they are anti-abortion, but I feel anti-choice gives a more inclusive title to their attack on women's rights. They are certainly not pro-life, and should never be described as such. I hear no plan from them on how to deal with the many babies in this situation that will be brought into this world.
The Dobbs fans are Pro-fetus! As has been noted in the past, after the birth when the baby becomes viable then it is on its own! Healthcare…only if the parents can afford it!
I said it before, Dobbs protects the existence of an embryo and fetus while same court allows weapons of mass destruction to be purchased and used to massacre the very same children the court insisted must be born!
Lunacy to its lowest depths!
Great point. I've always used the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice". "Pro-life" is not the appropriate way to describe people who are against abortion. Those of us who are pro-choice care intensely about life!
Yes. We can do a much better "PR" job. Our narrative also needs to clarify that we are actually in favor of reducing the need for more abortions via education and contraception.
The stories I heard from an OBGYN on the Newshour last night were just awful. Women are being physically and emotionally harmed by the requirement they carry to term a fetus that has no chance of survival. This is sick minded and diabolically cruel. This needs a lot more publicity.
It is a simple message: Democrats want to assist women - Republicans are hurting them. Just as I believe we should be showing what an AR-15 does to a human, we should be shouting about the harm these arbitrary anti-women laws are doing.
Republicans are NOT "pro-life". They are pro brutality.
It will be uncomfortable and the images will have to be preceded by trigger warnings but confronting people with the realities of their decisions and making them unhappy with how they feel is critical to getting them to change. It's like the Justices complaining when they have to actually see people who are unhappy with their decisions and are forced to realize that those decisions impact real lives.
Bill- I think your assessment of pro brutality is accurate. As far as AR 15's-though showing the images of children decimated by the effects of an AR 15 are horrific, perhaps some pro gun folks might think twice about owning one once that image is seen. On the other hand, those sickos who commit the atrocities might be more inspired. Hard to say.
I have changed my language from pro life to pro forced pregnancy. Nothing about their platform is pro life.
I agree with you on the Anti-Choice vs Pro-Life but I don't agree on the Pro-choice vs Pro-abortion. For too long Dems and progressives have been trying too hard not to scare the other side by saying abortion and it has landed us here. Abortion is a right for women. Abortion is healthcare. We should stop being afraid to use that word. We are pro-abortion because it is a right, healthcare, and very necessary. I am done trying to soften things for the other side. I feel like only monsters could do what they just did to us.
I disagree with you on the wording. Pro-choice embodies the proactive right of women to guide their own lives, in contrast to Pro-abortion, which throws a negative light only on the reproductive choices that women face.
"Pro-choice" is an overarching term that encompasses a woman's right to make choices along the entire spectrum of her own health care. It includes reproductive choices such as the right to an abortion.
I think pro-choice is too consumerist (what lipstick should i choose?) and pro-abortion is inaccurate. What many of us support is women's freedom to decide when and how to procreate, and women's freedom to end pregnancies that are unwanted and in some cases the result of violence assault.
If we want to be REALLY accurate. It is Reproductive Justice and that includes all the people that had no access or very little access to reproductive healthcare when abortion was legal and before Roe was overturned.
Back before Roe, my church in NYC had abortion access for women. I am still a member of that church and proud of it.
I understand what you mean. But pro-choice has never been consumerist to me. I was at the age when Roe was decided, so that pro-choice was a huge deal - a life-and-death deal. I'll be 70 next week...
And i understand what you mean, i'm your age. but my 40 something daughter has always objected to the word choice, and our town has had signs proclaiming "its a baby not a choice" for decades. I know that by choice we mean agency, but daughter would argue that l4 year olds coerced into sex are already not able to make "choice" about their lives.
One more add-on. 14-year-olds SHOULD definitely have a choice, just like every other female of our species. Rape is a crime. I want to know what happens to the males who ruin the lives of females.
Of course it’s not a choice for a 14-year old or for a 40 year old who is raped. That is not the core of the conversation.
Good suggestion, and quite true. Words indeed matter.
As a lawyer who devotes 100% of her time analyzing the pathetic failure of the people who control the legal profession (and its law schools), I can speak to the misery that accompanies the practice of law. The white male power that controls the lives and careers of lawyers in marginalized groups, including women, is exemplified by the personality of the Federalist Society, the elite of the power behind the ABA, which established the paradigm for all bar associations. Do you know that the ABA was formed during the Civil War to promote the legal profession at that time?
Part of what is wrong with the legal profession is the paywall that everywhere limits and restricts access to information to anyone who chooses not to "belong" and pay dues for the privilege. The interests of the rank-and-file lawyers dealing with the stress, boredom, and inadequate recognition attached to an an ordinary career are ignored.
I mention this because the American Lawyer article cited by Robert is so restricted. I happen to have a membership that allows me to read one article a month (whoopee!) so I'm good. But the average concerned citizen will never read what those women lawyers have to say - because they are part of that elite group, serving clients who can afford them. (Follow the money.)
The problem is made worse by the refusal of partners and former partners in those big law firms to give a little of their own time to provide some help to a nobody like me who is taking on the lonely quest of trying to improve the lot of those ordinary lawyers, close to half of whom are sorry they went to law school. People who are influential in law schools are the same: fewer than 10% of professors who publish articles encouraging changes to the statisically proven unhappy state of the legal profession -- one that finds suicide as the third leading cause of death. -- will spend any time giving a little time to help someone achieve change. It seems that big firm lawyers and well-published professors have better things to do than spend an hour trying to address the realities of how the legal system is failing ordinary lawyers and the public they serve.
What the Federalist Society has achieved with Dobbs and the power within the two branches of government it now controls is an outgrowth of all that I speak of here. As wealthy as our legal system is, it is of little value to the ordinary people whose lives are affected by the failures of the legal profession and the schools that profit from putting them into a workforce that disrespects them.
We are dealing with this SCOTUS because good people have allowed the status quo to be shaped by the lawyers who controlled this country during the Civil War. It was just a matter of time.
Hi, Janet. Well said, all around. But I gained access to The American Lawyer in exchange for giving the publication my gmail address, which it undoubtedly monetizes by selling advertising directed at me. But you are right; as I recall, the subscription to the print and data versions of the American lawyer is shockingly high--like $2,500 per year?
I am waiting for my first indignant email from a Federalist Society member. When I read the membership list last night, I was shocked to see some prominent women who have fought for women's rights and otherwise progressive male members of the bar. But that is the secret of a "club." People who aren't in it, want to be included, even if it stands for things they abhor.
Altho we keep talking about abortion. what is really at stake is who has control over what to do with one's body. Other actions that have been mentioned concerning the right to use contraceptives, but what about the right to take or not to take any different medicines; what about surgery. We tried once to control the intake of alcohol - a quick turn around. I'm sure there are other types of actions if we stop to think about it. I also agree that one of the worst things we did as a society was to allow the term right to life to refer only for abortions. Se conveniently forget about the death penalty, providing help to those after birth and those who may need long term care. As others have stated one can be pro choice without necessarily being pro abortion. The hypocrisy especially among those on the right is amazing. They pick and choose what they agree with from the Bible, from the Constitution among others, but don't believe others have the same right. I don't hear much about people being against abortion - if you don't believe in it, don't have one, but others should have the same right to allow for it. We are in a sad state when what the majority of people believe is not important [see the recent SCOTUS decisions]
I agree, Hillard. From my note above: I think the root of Dobbs is broader than reproductive choice, but control over personhood and self. Telling a woman she cannot decide whether to procreate is rooted in the notion that women are "less than" other citizens. It is a shocking decision, with many parallels to Dred Scott.
And beyond procreating, these laws are putting lives at risk because they can't terminate a pregnancy that can kill them. The ectopic pregnancy example is absolutely barbaric, as is the 12-year-old incest victim, and expecting parents that typically participate in genetic counseling and testing - turning back the clock on medicine/healthcare. For women that are diagnosed with cancer while pregnant, the list can go on. The state taking away this control from us is unfathomable.
PS - I HOPE YOU ARE FEELING MUCH BETTERAND TRYING TO TAKE IT AS EASY AS YOU CAN
Amen…’…control over what to do with one’s body…”
Gee…I didn’t know the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness were deleted from the founding fathers words when they set down the texts that established our country!?
When did that happen?
If a person does not have total control over her/his body then how can they pursue life and liberty?
Can’t believe the rogue court occupiers would have passed law courses penning the nonsense they used in these recent decisions!
...and isn't it curious how they continue to IGNORE the Federal Supremacy clause embedded in the Constitution and repeatedly say "Send it back to the states."
Divide and conquer! Age old policy.
Scalia’s infamous Heller reasoning, which contained Nothing about an individuals right to bear arms outside his/her home, opened the flood gates for gun lobbyist money to buy votes amongst state legislators who then voted for open carry and concealed carry laws in their respective states!
Federal Supremacy? Indeed…incorrectly applied to justify state laws!
When we amend the Constitution to guarantee the right to healthcare, including abortion, limit the right to posses guns to military or police service and secure the right to vote without undue burden, the first provision to be amended is the Preamble: we shall add the following provision from the Declaration of Independence, although with the one modification depicted in ALL CAPS:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all PEOPLE are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Oh, and I forgot, for those Supreme Court judges who claim that since a certain right is not specifically granted in the Constitution, we shall add asterisks “*” to and underline and bold the 9th Amendment which states:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Federalist Society is an anti-democratic front for the idea that government works best when run by an elite minority (ie. an oligarchy of wealth) because the masses are deemed incapable of self-government. This was the credo of the original Federalist political party in America, the worst aspects of which were espoused by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.
Which begat the electoral college and 2 senators per state Regardless of population!
The ability of the minority to subvert the popular vote was built into the ‘DNA’ of our country!!
PBS Newshour has been doing very touching "In Memoriam" segments to honor our brothers and sisters who have fallen since the many deaths that occurred from Covid. They have also done these segments for those in this country that have been murdered by men who should have never owned a gun, much less an AR-15.
Here is the segment for the Highland Park victims. Get a tissue ready. https://www.pbs.org/video/in-memoriam-sot-1657133300/
And Uvalde: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/remembering-the-victims-of-the-uvalde-texas-school-shooting
And Buffalo: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/remembering-the-victims-of-the-mass-shooting-in-buffalo
Thank you, Lynn.
While I am not an attorney why not ALL attorneys who support this demand the ABA disbar these six conservative Supreme Court Justices who voted for Dobson? Who voted to disregard their oath to uphold the Constitution? Let’s demand this. I can write my letter to the ABA. And you? I guess the Constitution does not require attorneys to sit on SCOTUS, but still….
Hi, Richard. Your intention is directionally right, and I agree. but the ABA is not a licensing body. It is a little like belonging to the Chamber of Commerce. I think that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh should be impeached for lying to the Senate.
The Senate will never try them. I’m thinking it a symbolic move by ABA
Certainly the RW GOP folks wouldn't vote to impeach-they basically believe they shouldn't be held to account ,so why should faithless Justices be held to account, especially since those Justices are doing what the legislators want.
It is outrageous that abortion has become criminalized. But the further insanity is that men, the fathers, are left out of the equation. They ARE half the equation. Women, mothers, will be imprisoned but not men, the fathers. But perhaps I’m crazy for applying logic to authoritarian cruelty.
A couple of points. First, let’s always remember, always, that Dobbs is an attack on human rights—the rights of all humans—and not “just” on the rights of women. It reminds me of Martin Niemoller’s reflection (sadly, too late), “First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist…”
Second, let’s remember that the Republican Party, now joined by a majority of the Supreme(?) Court, is engaged on a war on democracy, and a war on truth itself.
I am grateful that Kevin McCarthy did not have the power to never impanel the 1/6 Committee. American citizens living in California's 23rd District would have had no idea how close we came to a revolution followed by an autocracy and kleptocracy. Nor would the rest of us. Ugh. Kevin McCarthy and Gym Jordan are dangers to the republic.
I would have loved to read the American Lawyer article, but had to have a "company address." Can you post the article please?
Here is the full text of the article, which consists only of the letter. I have excluded the headline and the 2,650 names:
“[O]ne result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens.” That, as the dissent so clearly states, is the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In reversing Roe v. Wade and striking down half a century of precedent holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to decide for herself whether to carry a pregnancy to term, the court has entrusted to the governments of each state that otherwise most personal of choices, and left women bereft of the most fundamental of rights to control their bodies and the trajectory of their lives.
As the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, “The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It’s a decision she must make for herself.” Indeed, women throughout the country have been able to achieve educational, professional and personal goals because they were able to make these decisions for themselves. In rejecting Roe, Dobbs is remarkable in its disdain for women’s lives, health and autonomy and its disregard for the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth. As the dissenters noted, “Today’s court … does not think there is anything of constitutional significance attached to a woman’s control of her body and the path of her life.” We find that disregard—and the disregard for half a century of precedent—both astounding and reprehensible. We also know that the burdens of this decision will fall disproportionately on those with the least access to healthcare, particularly on women of color, those in rural communities, and those without ample financial resources.
The effects of this decision are profound. The majority in Dobbs has cleared the way for states to commandeer a woman’s body from the very moment of fertilization and “force her to bring a pregnancy to term even at the steepest personal and familial cost.” Indeed, a girl too young to consent to sex under state law—or to drive, drink, or vote—may, under the majority’s ruling, be compelled to carry a pregnancy to term because a state takes a greater interest in the possibility of a life other than her own. This is contrary to the Constitution’s fundamental promise of free and equal citizenship under law. What next personal decision will the court rule we are not permitted to make on our own? What greater indignities must we fear? How far will state authorities go to enforce these restrictive and compulsory laws, and against whom? Will women be able to receive safe, effective, medically-indicated care during miscarriage, and when a wanted pregnancy goes awry? Or will physicians hesitate or refuse to provide such care for fear of personal liability? Is it safe for pregnant women to travel to states where such care cannot be assured? This tectonic shift in the law brings dangerous and life-altering consequences for all of us.
Each of the undersigned has the great honor and privilege of being members of the bar. We swore oaths to support and defend the Constitution. We take that oath seriously. We know that our ability to serve in the legal profession and swear that oath was hard fought and rests fundamentally on the premise and promise that we, as women and people who have or had the potential to become pregnant, are free and equal citizens under the law. And our presence and leadership within the bar is without question a byproduct of the freedom each of us has had to make reproductive decisions for ourselves.
In sum, with the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, women’s fundamental rights to liberty and equality have been drastically abridged. Women’s right to make choices about our reproductive health and when and if to have or expand a family is now subject to the control of state legislatures. The court has failed to uphold the promise at the very core of the Constitution: the promise of liberty and dispassionate, fair and equal treatment for all under law.
We cannot let that failure stand. As lawyers, and officers of the courts, we know we have unique abilities and responsibilities in the wake of this decision. To honor that responsibility and our oath to support the Constitution, we each commit ourselves to offering our pro bono legal services to organizations that defend and support women’s rights to autonomy, equality and safe access to reproductive care, including abortion. These organizations have waged the battle for reproductive freedom for decades. Now more than ever, they are in need as they support women across the country who will find themselves in the crosshairs of the law. This commitment is personal, but we call upon members of the bar across the country to make similar commitments, including and importantly the men of the bar, who we need as our allies in the fight for equal citizenship.
With sorrow and a call to action,
Thank you, Mr. Hubbell, for posting this letter. Excellent.
I agree that it is (and long has been) essential that “we” engage concretely with the white evangelical Christians and Federalist Society members of our acquaintance - and to the extent feasible, otherwise too. Fear and ignorance of how to do this lovingly and effectively are barriers to our undertaking this critical task, but “we” can overcome our fear, and I am grateful that you and others are helping us “cure” our ignorance. Thank you, Robert, Pew Trust and David Frume.
I know you can't cover everything every day, Robert. But having just seen the BWC videos of white Akron policemen firing about 60 rounds in a matter of seconds at a fleeing, unarmed black man--many of these shots fired after Mr. Walker was hit and lying (presumably already dead) on the ground--I urge us all not to forget about such other horrible examples of American citizens being deprived of their rights by government actors who are totally out of control.
Agree. I did write about the killing of Jayland Walker on Monday. I will continue to report on developments.
Today's Edition Newsletter, July 7, Reports from the front, is another strategic and tactical masterpiece!
Writing from Texas…I agree with Robert that we should also be writing our local officials, even though at least here they are nonpartisan. My message to my city council was that I did not want the city budget spent on chasing down abortion seekers or providers. And from our school board, I want to hear how counselors and school nurses will continue to support our students, as our state govt. has turned that mission upside down. Lastly, as you hear talk about how all this might more broadly impact our economy, workplace, etc., encourage folks to take a look at world population review.org for a list of countries in which abortion is banned (R’s next goal). All third world.
Thanks, Cathy. Are you able to give a better link to the list? I click on review.org and got a virus warning. Can you link directly to the article (or past the list)? thanks!
the correct link is 'worldpopulationreview.com'. Search for 'abortion' to see status of all countries vis a vis abortion
I apologize for initially posting an incorrect link and thank you Robert and Theo for pointing out and correcting.
I was in a rush leaving for the day, but want to clarify that I have been hearing stories positing that somehow we need to see over time the impact on poverty, the economy, etc. I call BS--we don't need to wait to see the impact. All we need to do is look at those countries where abortion is banned. Why isn't Congress holding hearings and getting this information out there? There is absolutely the civil rights/women/child abuse aspect, but this will have a huge impact on the country's economic well-being and certainly standing in the world. I do not want to criticize the other countries on this list, but surely we do not aspire to have their levels of economic strength/well-being?
Thank you for not mentioning Lindsey Graham. I have enjoyed the short respite of seeing that disgusting face on my TV screen.
Among the many things that have really killed me in this Trump era is how so many of these characters feel that they can just ignore subpoenas. Let's just imagine the thousands of black and brown folks in the system. What if they all just decided to do the same??
DA Willis is one bad ass and clearly a brilliant attorney leading a very serious investigation. I believe she will be what saves America.